Can Hillary Supporters Start Saying "Told Ya So"?

Has everyone read Matt Taibbi's new piece in Rolling Stone?

Its titled "Obama's Big sellout" and its a heck of a reality check.


Rolling Stone: ry/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print

Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

Then he got elected.

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.


I will first acknowledge that Taibbi in no way was a supporter of Mrs. Clintons, but he does us a great service by reminding people of the forgotten mis-truths central behind Obama's primary campaign and the hidden truth about how he has done Wall Street and the financial community's bidding since winning the White House - to the great detriment of America's working families.

You see, from Day One of campaign Obama - he led Hillary in raising money from Wall Street, national bankers, traders and bondsman.  This is even though Hillary was the Senator from New York and the entire liberal web pretended that it was Hillary who was being bankrolled by the financial vested interests that most progressives believe are too influential and greedy.  Obama also led Mrs Clinton in raising money from K street lobbyists - who bundled money and gave through their spouses or had their "non registered lobbyist" partners in their firms be the names on said checks to team Obama.  

This was done at the same time that the Obama campaign pushed the myth that it was Hillary that was backed by the hated lobbyist community.  You could have polled the blog community then or now and Id bet that way over 90% would believe that both Wall and K Street strongly backed Hillary in order to stop the more progressive Obama, but this was not true. The truth was the complete reverse. 

It was Obama who was the establishment candidate - the one supported by the vested interests, not Clinton.

This can be traced to who it was that Obama leaned on from the first day that he got to Washington.  Tom Daschle.  Daschle was defeated on the same day that Obama was elected to the US Senate.    In that shakeup, almost 100% of Daschles staff went over and became Obama's.  In a way - Obama took over for daschle - not only with his staff - but also his Presidential ambitions. (The long list of moneyed backers - wall street, k street, us corporate leaders who send our jobs to china - that Daschle had acquired as head of the Senate went right to Obama along with his chief of staff) These were not great reformers - Daschle represented the old line Senate establishment - he was placed in his leadership office by the Chris Dodds, Bob Grahmns and Teddy Kennedy's of the Senate. Bill Clinton never gave them the free reign to spend taxpayer dollars in the 90s and they deeply resented this.  There is great mythology about these fellows careers as true blue "public servants" - but one thing is for sure - these Senators always supported the financial and bonds community.  (Remember its the Kennedy family that owns the Chicago Mercantile Mart - which is run by a Shriver cousin and daschle and his wife are now the two highest paid lobbyists in this town.)

But because the political media was on a jihad to hurt Hillarys campaign and prop up Obama's - it was always reported that it was Hillary that was the one backed by the big guys and Obama raised all his money in 20 dollar checks.  BS.  Till very close to the end of the campaign - Obama raised the MAJORITY of his money in checks of over $1000.

Why was this you may ask.  First, the Clintons had a track record of being very strong deficit hawks.  Do you really think it even slightly possible that the same team that gave us the only balanced budgets in our lifetimes would have WASTED the 900 billion dollars - of giveaways to connected insiders - that has been called the "stimulus package"?  Hillary did have a stimulus plan - but it was all about building and rebuilding our degrading physical infrastructure - roads, bridges, schools etc...

900 Billion.  Lets put that number in perspective.  That same amount of money could have paid for all US high school graduates for the next twenty years - to go to their state colleges and universities -including room and board - for four years.  All of them, every kid who graduates from high school in our Country.

Now who was it that said that Hillary wouldnt be allowed to win with the superdelegate count or by allowing the votes of MI and FL dems to be counted?  The same person who pushed through this disgusting give away to the congressionally connected - Nancy Pelosi.  (Y'know the fiery "liberal" whose husband has made mad gazillions of dollars playing the same money games we decry GOP tycoons for)

Health care.  Ive known from 1/20/09 how this health care debacle was going to end.  Team obama wants a political victory much more than they care about actual reform - and they will pass a nothing bill and make all DEMS pretend that its a great "victory".  BS. Hell, if you couldnt see the future when obama first made the deal and giveaway to big Pharm when he gave away the store - for a pledge from those people to spend 150 million on media backing his plan - youre blind, dense or high on hopium.

$150 million!

There was never gonna be any "public option".  The Obama team made that clear from the beginning - they were leaking from the beginning that they were eventually gonna negotiate and trade that away.  And what do we end up with - a mandated plan where ALL of the policy coverage is steered directly to big insurance.  

Obama priorities are being made more clear every day by what kind of issues he chooses to deal with first. He pretty much turned health care over to congress, and now is is content to say he is in favor of whatever lame bunch of nothingness gets passed (as long as he doesn't get embarrassed by not getting anything passed).

He helped bail out Wall Street and the banks (and has kept quiet of what regulations are desirable to stop them from ripping off the country again).

Obama came into office amidst sweeping crises in the financial sector and did not do what needed to be done, and what had been done the last time the U.S. was sent careening into a depression because of Wall Street: he failed to push for tough financial reforms. Barack Obama needed to be the FDR figure who remade the American capital markets and made them fair again, and he barely laid a finger on the whole scene.

Instead, he put the people who created the problem in charge of fixing the mess,(like Citigroup exec Michael Froman, a Harvard classmate of the president - Obama might not have much in common with folks who dont eat arugula - but he does luv his harvard homies, no?) and ended up bailing them out instead of the rest of the country, at huge current and (presumably) future cost.The total bill for the Bush-Obama bailout is certainly above ten trillion at this point -- Inspector General Neil Barofsky thinks it might hit nearly $24 trillion ultimately -- and this went through without much fanfare. Meanwhile, the congress is stuck in the mud, panicked at the thought of paying three or four trillion over a decade or so for a health care program.

When will he get around to helping ordinary people? Obviously, contrary to what he said in his campaign, this does not seem to be a high priority of his. And by the time it becomes a priority, he will have spent us into a hole, and there will be nothing left for the poor and the middle class.

Lets be clear...we Hillary supporters told you during the primaries that Obama would never push for real health care reform, but you people wouldnt believed the myth that a Chicago/Daly pol who had a convicted slum lord influence peddler like Tony Rezlo - buy HIS LAWN OF HIS HOUSE for him - saving Obama $700,000 on a $2.5 million house was an idealist and the hope of regular working people.  (I still dont get how that didnt stop his rise from the get go...THAT was corruption in plain view -but the media and his hope-drunk supporters pretended it was nothing)

We Hillary supporters told you about Obama;s amazing fundraising from Wall Street financial interests and said how that showed he was NOT the candidate you thought he was, but you wouldnt see...

The question is when will a significant amount of Democrats begin to tell the truth about this President and the false message and promise that he used to manipulate our Primary system while at the same time degrading and attacking both Clintons as sellouts, corporatists and very effectively and completely unforgivably...race baiters?

If it was OK for Teddy Kennedy to challenge Carter in 1980 - why dont we begin to discuss who could take on Obama in 2012.  His polls are incredibly bad - the worst in modern times.  Both Huckabee and Sarah Palin are ONE POINT behind him in recent national polling.  I dont think its gonna get better.  If the Obama administration changes, pulls things around and starts to actually care about working Americans first - fine - but if does not and because of this, we have terrible loses in 2010 as many expect - I think at that time every thinking Democrat must consider backing a challenger to him in the primaries.(By the way - I know that can't and won't be Hillary.  She wont ever run again.  We Democrats had our chance there - but we blew it.  That ship has sailed...)

Tags: Hillary, obama, reality versus fantasy (all tags)




an absurd tantrum, counterfactual on just about every level.

by BlueinColorado 2009-12-12 10:16AM | 0 recs
Here's two

.  His polls are incredibly bad - the worst in modern times.  Both Huckabee and Sarah Palin are ONE POINT behind him in recent national polling.

His poll numbers are better than Reagan's or Clinton's at comparable points in their first terms. and you're comparing Obama's job performance ratings to Huck's and SP's personal favorablity ratings.

You really shouldn't get your info from Laura Bush' former press secretary, you poor sad bitter little PUMA.

by BlueinColorado 2009-12-12 10:34AM | 0 recs

sorry, he dropped below 50 faster - and by % his collapse has been unique.

"I'm going to hold my breath until the facts go away!!"

Last week, President Obama's approval rating slipped below 50 percent in the Gallup poll for the first time since he took office, making him the third-fastest president to fall below that bar since World War II.  Ford did it in his third month, Clinton in his fourth, and Reagan in his tenth.

but keeping making shit up if you find some comfort in your fantasy the Clinton/Bayh could've beat McCain/Lieberman, and that Hillary, the fighter who lost every fight she ever fought, would've been a great progressive leader.

by BlueinColorado 2009-12-12 10:49AM | 0 recs

"sorry, he dropped below 50 faster - and by % his collapse has been unique."

Approve 50.0%, Disapprove 44.0%
Dec. 11 / Gallup

Approve 50.0%, Disapprove 44.0%
Dec. 10 / Gallup

He's back at fifty?

PUMA fail.

by BlueinColorado 2009-12-12 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: oh look name calling!

Why not? This and all the other Anti-Obama diarists in the Socialist Free Republic have a few names coming!

by spirowasright 2009-12-12 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: hows about an example big boy?

Isn't Hillary in the Obama admin?

by vecky 2009-12-12 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: hows about an example big boy?
Hillary fans can't "I told you so" unless she resigns at State.
by spirowasright 2009-12-12 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: hows about an example big boy?

She could resign and run against him after the 2010 midterms.  

by Kent 2009-12-12 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: hows about an example big boy?

No matter what happens, you called it Kent.  You called it.

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-12 10:54PM | 0 recs

I hadn't even seen the first time that you picked the stupidest line in Taibbi's rant as evidence

Inspector General Neil Barofsky thinks it might hit nearly $24 trillion ultimately

I said it during the primaries, and its still true today: Even though I preferred Obama, Hillary Clinton deserved much better supporters than she had, from her husband and Mark Penn right down to teh internet poo-flingers who made her look bad.

by BlueinColorado 2009-12-12 10:24AM | 0 recs
"Matt" ?

Are you two personally acquainted? Or have you adopted him as your special internet friend because he turned his hyperbole on that evil Obama who was so mean to Hillary!! (that he made her his Secretary of State).

by BlueinColorado 2009-12-12 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Can Hillary Supporters

I thought Tim Fernholz from TAP had a pretty compelling fact-check of Taibbi. d_archive?month=12&year=2009&bas e_name=oh_matt_taibbi#117712

The guy has a way with words, but so does Kid Oakland.  He basically writes DKos diaries for publication.

by Steve M 2009-12-12 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Can Hillary Supporters

Saw that.  I'm normally a Taibbi fan, but this last piece has some pretty serious problems.

by fogiv 2009-12-12 12:22PM | 0 recs
Fernholz is right d_archive?month=12&year=2009&bas e_name=on_that_taibbi_post#117719

Taibbi is great if you already agree with him and want someone to confirm your opinion in entertaining style.  If you actually want solid facts and well-reasoned analysis, look elsewhere.

by JJE 2009-12-13 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Can we say "do-over"?

With all due respect to Hillary Clinton, only 27% of Americans would rather have Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama as President right now.

You can absolutely say "I told ya so!" but the current reality flies in the face of that sentiment.

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-12 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah, and the average IQ is 100

and i totally doubt those numbers

Yet you repeatedly cite misleadingpolls comparing Palin's favorability ratings to Obama's performance ratings as the absolute truth.  Asking whether or not you like someone is an entirely different question than asking whether or not you approve of their performance.

but they have nothing to do  with the piece anyhow.

It has everything to do with the main premise of your contribution in this diary.  Saying "I told ya so!" would mean that most people have come to the realization that they should have listened to people like yourself and elected Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama.  When only 27% think Hillary would be doing a better job, you clearly aren't in a place to be saying "I told ya so!" to anyone.

But you can still say it.  This is America after all.

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-13 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Can we say "do-over"?
Another day, another Blog Birch rant and this one isn't a "this looks like a job for Super Kucinich" diary.
According to the latest poll posted at DKos, 86 percent of Democrats approve of Obama's performance in office and eight percent post on the liberal blogosphere.
Hey Kent! You've got Blog Bircher buddies!
by spirowasright 2009-12-12 12:36PM | 0 recs
Amen Ludwigvan

This President is exactly what you say, a fraud.  We need a President with a heart who actually cares about working people, not just Wall Street.  

We must find a 2012 primary challenge.  

by Kent 2009-12-12 01:57PM | 0 recs
Start Saying "Told Ya S

So let me see. Hillary would have probably brought in some if not all of the same finance crew (let's not forget they are clinton folks)

Afghanistan she probably would have doubled down as well.

Healthcare, My guess just as big a cluster fuck, thanks to Congress, as it is now.

So what is you want to say again?

by jsfox 2009-12-12 03:14PM | 0 recs
Hillary knew the ways of Washington

Obama does not.  

by Kent 2009-12-12 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: if youd read the piece

No I do not know that by reading the piece. Because nobody can know that for certain, even the all knowing (in his mind) Matt Tiabbi. You can guess but you cannot know.

by jsfox 2009-12-13 04:24AM | 0 recs

What would Hillary have done differently?  

p.s. - it doesn't make you look good to accuse people of ad hominems and then spit them out rapid fire at the same time.  

ppss - do you have any links for all your fundraising claims?

by KLRinLA 2009-12-12 04:47PM | 0 recs
Hillary woudnt have wasted time on Republicans

She knows that they wont work with Democrats no matter what.  Democratic Presidents need to focus on getting only Democratic votes in Congress.  

by Kent 2009-12-12 05:29PM | 0 recs
Kent you really need . . .

to keep silent. Time after time you make predictions, claim doom and are proven wrong.

There is an a saying you should heed.

"Tis better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

by jsfox 2009-12-13 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: meh

For starters, she would have appointed a different Secretary of State.  Try arguing with that one!

by Steve M 2009-12-12 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: meh

Sweet potato Christ you just blew my mind.

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-12 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: meh

Well you got me there :)

by jsfox 2009-12-13 04:27AM | 0 recs
"Told Ya What"?

Told ya what?  That they were the same?

The only good reason for supporting Clinton, which I found and took, was that it left the progressive opposition in tact to continue crashing the gate for progressive change. At least with Clinton, that fight would have been there from the get go. With Obama, its a year late, but I think is now finally getting engaged.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-12 05:46PM | 0 recs

This is perhaps the most convulted argument I've ever heard...Clinton would've been better because progressives would've always hated her and kept fighting?

Do you really think Hillary Clinton winning a narrow Democratic primary would have anything other completely demoralize anti-Hillary progressives? Don't you remember how many were willing to throw the election to McCain if she won...I'm sure you do, you had colorful names for them, these "progresive opposiiton" people.

by ND22 2009-12-12 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: "Told Ya What"?

Wow!  It would have been nice if you had articulated that position at any time throughout the election, rather than just carrying water regardless of the facts.

Seriously though, I would have appreciated your current argument if you had expressed it a year ago.  I sincerely would have.

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-12 11:13PM | 0 recs


by JJE 2009-12-13 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Can we say "do-over"?


by Reaper0Bot0 2009-12-12 06:26PM | 0 recs

Is there seriously anyone who doesn't think this is Kent on another alias?

by ND22 2009-12-12 08:46PM | 0 recs

the primary wars ended almost a year and a half ago.

by ND22 2009-12-13 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously?

Uh, me?

by Steve M 2009-12-13 06:22AM | 0 recs
such responses are to be expected

when you post a troll diary.

by JJE 2009-12-13 12:00PM | 0 recs
Hillary would have been no better.

I was a strong supporter of the Clintons in the 90's, but it was easy to become disenchanted with Hillary during the last campaign. For openers, her campaign lacked any grown-up supervision, and usually resembled a bunch of kindergarteners fighting.

Obama was a left-of-center candidate, campaigned as one, and never made any bones about it. Hillary spent most of her campaign trying to move from the center to the left---on Iraq, on NAFTA, and a host of other issues. At the end of the day, people just found Obama more credible than Mrs. Clinton. In a campaign where authenticity seemed to be what people wanted most in a candidate, Hillary flunked the test.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-12-13 07:22AM | 0 recs

The time to say "I told you so" ran out in July 2008 when Obama flipped on Telecom immunity. Anyone who hadn't figured out who Obama was by then was politically hopeless.

Since then the best bet was to support Obama and pressure him from the left.

You are correct on economic policy, Clinton's economic proposals were much more democratic than Obama's. She explicitly recognized that market-based approaches were inadequate to our economic situation and pushed for direct government intervention rather than channeling money through Wall St. as the Fed and Obama have been doing.

But there is no chance in hell that anyone will mount a serious primary challenge to Obama. As disappointing as he may be to some he remains extremely popular among Democrats, and given his record so far he is likely to chalk up more than enough Democratic accomplishments to cruise to primary victory.

by souvarine 2009-12-13 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Can Hillary Supporters Start Saying

I'm almost there.

by Drummond 2009-12-14 07:34PM | 0 recs
"Told Ya So"?

Sure.  Why not.  

Starting to say "Told Ya So" after every exhalation is what PUMAs do best.  

Say it here as much as you want.  Unlike PUMA sites, a diversity of perspectives appear here.

by Strummerson 2009-12-14 08:22PM | 0 recs
As someone who

initially supported John Edwards and then gravitated over to the Clinton camp and who found candidate Obama sorely lacking, I am embarrassed by this diary.

The PUMA movement is a cult of Clinton. It is deeply ironic that those who bemoaned the cult of Obama remain entrenched in the view that a Clinton Administration would have fared better, worshipping her every move. On Afghanistan, Secretary Clinton has been one of the biggest hawks. And there is no reason that she would or even John Edwards would have fared better in dealing with a Senate as currently composed. To blame the President for the institutional crisis we face is misguided. One can criticize his lack of leadership, which is ultimately a stylistic one, without indulging in petulant cries of "I told you so." These neither serve our partisan cause nor the national interest.

The views expressed here in this diary speak to a profound ignorance of politics and the world we live in.  If you want to wallow in such ignorance then I suggest you seek your validation at The Confluence or No Quarter, two blogs built on the politics of hate and pettiness.

by Charles Lemos 2009-12-15 12:11AM | 0 recs

Obama has been a big disappointment but based on her bumbling campaign why should I think Hillary (or any of the sorry bunch of contenders) would have been any better? The Democratic party has been a disgrace for years Bill Clinton completed it's move into the corporate pocket. I guess that's not going to change anytime soon.

by hankg 2009-12-15 01:07AM | 0 recs
are you trying to tell me

Hillary wouldn't have appointed a bunch of Rubin people to run economic policy by and for Wall Street?

I doubt that very much.

by desmoinesdem 2009-12-15 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: are you trying to tell me

Read what she actually said and proposed on economic policy, it might surprise you. For instance she argued that the private insurance market alone was inherently incapable of efficiently funding health care.

Even after the primary she was pushing hard for a new HOLC, a direct government program to re-write mortgages. Obama went with a bank based approach, which has failed.

Her policies were clear in the campaign, she described where the market was failing, and why the government had to step in. They were not by and for Wall Street.

by souvarine 2009-12-15 06:18AM | 0 recs
and you fell for it lol

by ND22 2009-12-15 06:36AM | 0 recs

we will never know....

by nikkid 2009-12-15 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: "Told Ya What"?

bs, I posted that many times over.

You point to me tallying a fundraising contest between the two camps, and what they reported, as proof of what?

What exactly in this is not factual?

"...Obama's raised 2:1 over the last 24 hours, against Clinton. If they continue on like this for a few more days, Obama will have $15M to Clintons $7.5M more to spend... the point is, there is more than enough money being raised by both sides that its not really a significant advantage, especially at the Presidential level-- you need enough money but having a ton more cannot alone win it. Ask Ron Paul.

Update [2008-2-7 12:1:58 by Jerome Armstrong]: Clinton is now at over $4M and aiming for over $6M in the 72 hours following Feb 5th. Obama is at $7.5M thus far since Feb 5th."

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-15 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: What?

Well, granted, it would have necessarily taken a convoluted argument for me to have supported either Cliton or Obama in the primaries (you're talking about the 6th & 7th personal choices out of 9  or so starting out...), I just happened on one that hypothetically worked when confronted with the choice.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-15 05:29AM | 0 recs
Ah, yes...

I dropped by looking for a quick Puma Lite (tm) fix, and it's good to see that nikkid, Lakrosse, et al. are still keeping these turd-burgers on the rec list.

by TexasDarling 2009-12-15 09:04AM | 0 recs
The Dead Horse

I suppose if you're still obsessing on a primary that ended at least 18 months ago, have nothing new to contribute, and ignore that Obama's administration is filled with Clintonites (including Hillary herself), then, yes Luwig Van Beetadeadhorse, you can indeed say "Itoldyaso".  Feel better, honey?

by mikeinsf 2009-12-15 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: 2 things alone would have changd millions of l

You keep saying Pelosi screwed this up.  How?  She got her Blue Dogs in line and put out a fairly decent proposal.  The scandal has been in the Senate.

by mikeinsf 2009-12-15 09:28AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads